Tidal Hits 3 Million Subscribers

What's more, and most interesting (and I have to admit a little unexpected), is there are 1.35 million Tidal HiFi subscribers (that's the $19.99/mo CD quality service)! That's a lot of people caring about quality and that's great news. For a change.

The press has a love hate relationship with Tidal ever since the new owners took over; the press loves to hate on Tidal. As the Verge put it, "Tidal's fortunes are looking far better than they did just six months ago." Yea, that's because six months ago, the press were too busy trying to attract eyeballs with silly stories of Tidal's demise than in reporting facts. Artist exclusive releases, like Kayne West's Life of Pablo, have certainly helped attract subscribers, something Tidal's new owners have been talking about since day 1.

I have to admit to a very personal involvement here, a deep prejudice if you will, as I am addicted to Tidal HiFi. Having access to what is now a 40 million song library mixed and mingled with the music I own thanks to Roon, adds up to the best music enjoyment and discovery platform I've ever experienced.

Go Tidal! Live long and prosper.

COMMENTS
nparadis's picture

Yes! Tidal is like having a huge music store available right in your home and also everywhere on your mobile.
I have been on Spotify for a few months but as soon as I heard the sound of Tidal Hifi, there was no way I would go back. Let's hope the suscriptions keep going up so it gets more profitable for artists and owners.

Jnani's picture

...who again?

pdxdon's picture

I have been using Tidal for about 6 months now, most recently in conjunction with Roon. I find I use it more than my own library, for the most part, because there is so much to explore or remember (I lost major parts of my music collection due to format changes and flooding). Access is of course great, but sometimes I find myself less satisfied with what I am listening to, partially because reality does not meet my expectations due to recording quality, musicianship, faulty memory, etc. Having so many choices can paradoxically not lead to musical pleasure or ease of deciding what to listen to. None of this is TIDAL's fault.

Cosmicmusic's picture

I am glad to hear about Tidal's gain in popularity. Unfortunately, I find that their catalog is sorely lacking when compared to Google Play Music or Spotify.

I listen mainly to more adventurous jazz (creative/improv/free) of which Google is decently stocked. But until Tidal's catalog is expanded to at least the size of Google's current catalog, I cannot justify subscribing to another paid music streaming service, especially not at the "hi-fi" rate.

mtymous1's picture

...why not just purchase the catalog of your desired niche genre as opposed to renting lower-quality from Google?

Cosmicmusic's picture

I do actually purchase a lot of music, mostly on CD but also quite a bit of downloaded music in as high a bit rate as possible.

But I have come to really enjoy the freedom that Google provides: the ability to listen to music that I may not have otherwise been prepared to purchase without first becoming thoroughly familiar with it, a great luxury that a huge catalog affords to the subscriber. I have gone out and purchased many titles that I first discovered on Google Music.

But you mentioned "buying a niche of music"... is that an option on Tidal? I experimented with Tidal several months ago but do not recall seeing such an option. Or are you simply referring to traditional purchasing of CDs and downloads?

mtymous1's picture

My "purchase vs. rent" question was to gain more insight in to your preference(s) for libraries or for streaming.

As far as purchasing music through Tidal, I never bought any -- however, I did download a bunch of it to take with me. The download capability was especially useful when working on a client site -- last thing I needed as a billable consultant were bandwidth-hog alerts stemming from my IP address!

Like you, I still purchase CDs and high(er)-rez files, but I also still purchase SACDs and vinyl. Most of my physical media purchases are made through Amazon.

Back to Tidal, I liked it while I was a subscriber - its SQ was the clincher. However, I discontinued my subscription mainly because I didn't like how it curated new (at least new to me) music. (Admittedly, I could very well be at an age where new music just doesn't appeal to me like it used to.) As a result, I found myself streaming the same stuff that I already had in my library, so it made sense for me to cancel. (I have a good-sized library - not 40 million songs, but sizable enough where I do not hear the same song twice for months of regular listening.)

Note that I specifically didn't make the subject "Streaming vs. Libraries" -- I feel that both collections complement each other, not compete against each other. Although, the topic does make for a good post in the forums, which I've just done:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/streaming-and-libraries

mtymous1's picture

My "purchase vs. rent" question was to gain more insight in to your preference(s) for libraries or for streaming.

As far as purchasing music through Tidal, I never bought any -- however, I did download a bunch of it to take with me. The download capability was especially useful when working on a client site -- last thing I needed as a billable consultant were bandwidth-hog alerts stemming from my IP address!

Like you, I still purchase CDs and high(er)-rez files, but I also purchase SACDs, BluRay Audio, and vinyl. Most of my physical media purchases are made through Amazon.

Back to Tidal, I liked it while I was a subscriber - its SQ was the clincher. However, I discontinued my subscription mainly because I didn't like how it curated new (at least new to me) music. (Admittedly, I could very well be at an age where new music just doesn't appeal to me like it used to.) As a result, I found myself streaming the same stuff that I already had in my library, so it made sense for me to cancel. (I have a good-sized library - not 40 million songs, but sizable enough where I do not hear the same song twice for months of regular listening.)

Note that I specifically didn't make the subject "Streaming vs. Libraries" -- I feel that both collections complement each other, not compete against each other. Although, the topic does make for a good post in the forums, which I've just done:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/streaming-and-libraries

MilesFerg's picture

That's $27 million per month for the HiFi service! Or $324 million per year! I think the HiFi price is about double, so that's $162 million per year incremental for better quality sound. What's their additional cost? I doubt they have to pay any additional royalties. Is it sunk cost in servers and infrastructure? This could be their biggest profit driver. If others figure this out, it could lead to a quality war and competing on who can deliver the highest resolution format. What a great time to be a music lover!

I can't get over Tidal quality. Head to head with a cheap Google Chromecast Audio/Firestone Audio Bravo re-clocker vs. the internal transport, has the transport beat (granted my CD/DAC is 15 years old).

I have both Spotify and Tidal premium services, because I find Spotify so much easier to find new music/artists and organize. You can easily transfer playlists to Tidal via Soundiiz.com.

X